Ross must stick to his guns as our judiciary is a law unto itself
THE credibility of Shane Ross as a reforming Government minister is at stake as the Judicial Appointments Bill, which allows for a lay chairperson and a lay majority on the proposed new 11-strong body to oversee judicial appointments, comes under renewed attack.
His attempt to reform this quasi-political process was debated yesterday at the Oireachtas Committee on Justice as the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, Jim O’Callaghan SC, tries to water down this reform bill and keep political and judicial control of the appointment process. His “compromise” proposes that the new 11-member board should be chaired by a retired judge, instead of the lay person proposed under the legislation.
Having seen Mr Ross in action in a different sphere – the media – I believe that he is a formidable opponent and once he has made up his mind he will stick to his guns. In this instance, he is doing the right thing. As he said in his 2012 book ‘The Untouchables’: “Just as the banks were run for the bankers, the judiciary is run for the judges – and their political patrons.”
One only has to look at the range of judicial vested interests ranged against the measure to realise just how desperate the judiciary and the Bar Council of Ireland are to hang on to their privileged position and the pomp that goes with it, much of which even pre-dates the foundation of the State.
We know from private correspondence that senior judges, past and present, are opposed to this measure, which would take judicial appointments completely out of the hands of government and politicians for the first time, although there would still be a significant input from the legal establishment.
Observers of such matters are well aware that generations of young and ambitious barristers attach themselves quickly to the coat-tails of the various political parties, notably Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, although Sinn Féin also now has its adherents. This puts them on the inside track and ensures preferment in later life when it comes to handing out the glittering prizes on the bench, with attached privileges and gold-plated pensions.
We have seen the unseemly power-plays so often over the years; we know that judges are often identified by their political pedigree rather than their judicial history.
This is not to say that politically aligned barristers are not worthy of elevation to the bench. Of course they are, but their political affiliation should have nothing to do with such appointments.
This is a system that Shane Ross has set out to reform. The question is often raised as to why he, as Transport, Tourism and Sport Minister, is doing this, but the answer is obvious – the vested interests in the political and judicial establishment, or as Ross called them, “the bastions of official Ireland”, have no appetite for such reform.
One of the leading opponents, Mr O’Callaghan of Fianna Fáil, is himself a senior practising barrister. Is it not questionable, if not untenable, that a member of the legal establishment is using his political influence to preserve the judicial/political axis that controls the path to powerful positions in the judiciary? Mr O’Callaghan claimed yesterday that he was “trying to identify solutions to the difficulties” – difficulties for the judiciary and the legal profession, rather than anyone else.
If he were a member of a State board (or any other board), Mr O’Callaghan would be ethically bound to stand aside from involvement in the Judicial Appointments Bill, because of his own clear conflict of interest, and allow someone else in Fianna Fáil to handle this issue and decide party policy. Having first advocated that the chair of the judicial appointments board should be the Chief Justice, Mr O’Callaghan now insists it should go to a retired judge, and without this ‘compromise’ Fianna Fáil will vote against this measure.
The legal profession, including the judiciary, has been a law unto itself for generations. It makes the rules and the rest of us have to take it or leave it.
Outdated practices, such as four lengthy ‘vacations’ and another break which is covered by a skeleton staff, may not be the only reasons for the long delays in the administration of justice, but they certainly contribute significantly to them.
The ‘long vacation’ in the summer runs from August 1 to September 30 every year – eight full weeks. A skeleton staff is on duty – allowing the well-heeled members of the legal profession time to enjoy their holiday homes in the west of Ireland and the south of France. What other organisation or business could sustain that kind of holiday and survive in this fast-paced modern world?
The Troika failed in only one respect during its term running Ireland Inc.
It failed to curb the enormous and unsustainable costs of litigation in this country. For a period during the great recession, fees did go down because there was stiff competition for work, but once the good times began to roll they shot up again.
“Vested interests very rarely welcome reform in their own area,” said Ross after it was revealed that Justice Susan Denham and other judges had sent a letter to the new Taoiseach Leo Varadkar criticising the proposals for the reform of judicial appointments, which is an agreed part of the Programme for Government which Mr Ross and his Independent Alliance signed up for.
It is understandable that they fear change, but vested interests always need to be challenged.
Maybe there is no perfect system for such appointments, but we’ve had the status quo since 1922 (and even then it was inherited seamlessly from the British).
Why not try something new? What is wrong with having a lay majority decide who gets to sit on the bench?
After all, virtually no other area of Irish life has stood still for nearly a century, and in the last decade we have seen seismic change in all other areas of Irish life.
Why should the judiciary be a law unto itself?
‘A skeleton staff is on duty as the well-heeled members of the legal profession enjoy their holiday homes in the west of Ireland and south of France’